Heaven and Hell

As I have posted before, the teaching of Universalism (which has a posh name I cannot say or spell) was very much part of the early Church, taught extensively. Taught by those who were involved in the choosing of the books that were eventually to form the final Canon of Scripture. I was the Emperor Justinian (no, not even the Pope!) who declared it heretical and later the Church rubber stamped the decision.

Thomas Talbot, who wrote "The Inescapable Love of God", suggests that Justinian's motivations were not entirely theological. No, perhaps not........

Or perhaps man is intelligent enough to question and doubt but not intelligent or brave enough to live in ignorance. In other words, perhaps man simply needed an explanation for what he didn't know and decided upon a supernatural, invisible mover. Carry on from there and things got more and more complex until religion and faith developed.

To argue that perhaps all of it was an entire scheme cooked up by a few elitists who knew better than the rest of humans and who sought a way to control the rest is pretty far-fetched (although so is a belief in an invisible man in the sky but people still believe that anyway.)

Both ways, it shouldn't take religion or superstition to develop a sense of right and wrong. Morality stems from natural instincts and inclinations to preserve ourselves, if anything.

Thanks for that. It's been a year or two since I read up on Nietzsche, so I got a little rusty. Nietzsche's ideas were always very interesting. The entire method of swapping the natural drive of power and flipping it on its head by the men of 'resentiment' was very interesting, but alas, somewhat far-fetched.

His work is also somewhat contradictory considering the fact that his 'super-man', being powerful enough to devise and maintain his own sense of good and bad (i.e. his own morality), was fundamentally limited by and trapped within the drive to power (that is; that his only mode of action was his drive to power). Irrespective of the fact that the drive to power is the natural and intrinsic superior law, it is still a law enforced upon a subject. And this begs the question: How is Nietzsche's super-man so super if he is forced to adhere to a law? In this case Nietzsche's super-man is no different to Nietzsche's Jew or Christian. All are trapped within their respective limits and roles of action.

Galas: Or perhaps man is intelligent enough to question and doubt but not intelligent or brave enough to live in ignorance. (i.e. perhaps man simply needed an explanation for what he didn't know and decided upon a supernatural, invisible mover) Carry on from there and things got more and more complex until religion and faith developed.

Erimitus: perhaps

>>>>>>>>>><<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<


Galas: To argue that perhaps all of it was an entire scheme cooked up by a few elitists who knew better than the rest of humans and who sought a way to control the rest is pretty far-fetched.

Erimitus: Societies seem to stratify into social classes. Tribal elders, medicine men, priests, etc., would be at the top.


>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>><<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<


Galas: Both ways, it shouldn't take religion or superstition to develop a sense of right and wrong.

Erimitus: Superstition would have been a good way to enforce a society's moral code.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>><<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<


Galas: Morality stems from natural instincts and inclinations to preserve ourselves

Erimitus: Self preservation seems to be instinctive.


Erimitus: Having some sort of moral code and supernatural entity seems to be universal and that suggests that it is inherent.


Erimitus: It seems to me that the ability to differentiate between good and bad in particular societies has to be learned.


Erimitus: The way that I understand it, different societies have different mores. Each society seems to believe that their particular moral code, and god, is (or should be) universal.

premise: morality is instinctive.

Erimitus: It seems that every social group develops a hierarchy. Maybe that is instinctive too.

as are we all...

maybe educated guess but nonetheless guesses.


I ain't got nun uh dat fancy store bought book lurnin so my guesses are less educated than others. Maybe not having been programed is to some advantage though.

I'm suspecting morality would've came to them naturally.

The religionists only needed to say very little to get people on the track of learning for themselves.

As I always do:

"Here's my theory/speculation (not truth)for you to grind. Maybe you can add too, remove from or evolve the idea."

and

"I've found simply by teaching people, in my imagination, what I want to understand more of the knowledge slowly comes to me."

Beyond that I only accidentally begin interjecting my personal politics.

Esther Hicks pointed this out. Some preachers began implementing some of her suggestions.

A lot of what we seem to be doing is attempting to try and find a way to communicate basic metaphysical theory that could help. Most offerings go over everyone's head however.

The Hicks Crew managed to repeat a lot of very old insight in a manner easier to consume by those not as concerned or educated with the subject manner hence why they got a lot of notice.

The problem with the Churchs is they are promoting everything handed over as 'Truth' taking notice how uncanny many suggestion are in relation to parables (supposedly) written a couple of thousands of years ago.

A long the way were also those denoms that seemed to use some speculation to either frighten others into obedience or those using it as such were paranoid themselves hence being so adamant as to deliver those speculations with a cracking whip and iron maiden.

And in one of the most absurd of situations, Esther might've accidentally assimilated all of her followers.

Hence why I say never take me verbatim only as added suggestions to work with.

I asked that to myself many years ago.

What I realized is that there was no way to avoid this course. No way whatsoever.

Even going to shrinks to try and drag me back to Ground Zero reality didn't work...or else didn't work for very long. I was only chased harder.

Some are just predestined to be thinkers.

What I believe sets them on that path is they show slight signs of caring enough about why others around them seem to be hurt and broken that they dare to ask.

A child's discarded corpse on the side of the road may be 'That's just life' too many.

To some of us, it's not a life we care to settle for and we go on pursuit to find the catalyst.


And..yeah...it's all brain science and Jesus from that point on.

BTW...anyone else get a quick glimpse of a Japanese choir boy praying to them sometimes, as they are falling asleep, or is that just a mad scientist several feet away from us having funnies?

Heaven = Forever.

Hell = Forever.

Interesting that you see it that way. Your theory sounds a little bit like E's. He was talking about morality being an intended result for the protection of the herd. If I understood you clearly, you're talking about the ability and willingness of specific individuals to be more open-minded and inquisitive than the rest. And on that basis, morality builds around itself.

I think that's just you, man.

Actually, the fat Japanese boy just speaks to me randomly during the day.

I was thinking of social contract theory...

Morality developed in order to increase the potential for survival.

Some people in a society only adhere to social standards when it is to their own advantage.

A vengeful, omnipotent, omniscient deity was invented to impose morality.

This approach seems to have worked for a few thousand years...

Carful! He is not your friend.

Both of which take place in the here and now.

We have to kiss and praise a lot of a** to avoid a hard knocks life.